QF Staff Engagement Survey Participation Rate
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Beyond The Envelope
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QF Staff Engagement Survey Participation Rate
Flight Ops:2555 Employees
1640 completed survey
54.19% Partipation
Cabin Crew:7164 Employees
3229 completed survey
45.07% participation
JetConnect:588 Employees
299 completed survey
52.64% participation
Engineering:4869 Employees
3428 Participation
70.40% Participation
Catering:2063 Employees
1042 Completed Survey
50.51% Participation
Qantas Overall Employees 29957
Completed Survey18707
Participation 62.45%
Lyell Strambi feels this is a fantastic result for Operations .The participation rate was 58%.Up from 47% in 2009 and 39% in 2010
1640 completed survey
54.19% Partipation
Cabin Crew:7164 Employees
3229 completed survey
45.07% participation
JetConnect:588 Employees
299 completed survey
52.64% participation
Engineering:4869 Employees
3428 Participation
70.40% Participation
Catering:2063 Employees
1042 Completed Survey
50.51% Participation
Qantas Overall Employees 29957
Completed Survey18707
Participation 62.45%
Lyell Strambi feels this is a fantastic result for Operations .The participation rate was 58%.Up from 47% in 2009 and 39% in 2010
Join Date: May 2008
Location: oz
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Were the previous survey results revealed, or was it only in the house format where each room denoted a subject of the survey and was given a colour indicator? ie green/orange/red.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So where do the missing 12,718 employees belong and what was their engagement?
Glad to see someone presumably with authority acknowledges Jetconnect and the staff are part of QF.
Now lets wait for the results of the analysis if it ever surfaces.
Glad to see someone presumably with authority acknowledges Jetconnect and the staff are part of QF.
Now lets wait for the results of the analysis if it ever surfaces.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Darwin
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Multiple Entries
What the numpties (I love that term) don't realise is that due to the password structure of the survey, multiple responses from the same person were allowed.
I know of one person who completed the survey 14 times. All on company time of course.
These numpties just can't win a trick.
I know of one person who completed the survey 14 times. All on company time of course.
These numpties just can't win a trick.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know of one person who completed the survey 14 times. All on company time of course.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: sydney
Age: 76
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course , it would be too much to expect the knockers and whingers to put their money where their mouth is and leave the place , as it is so bad according to you lot . No , you will stay and take the benefits , hard won by previous generations of real Unionists . A load of sooks and whingers todays lot, put up or shut up comes to mind . Ah well enjoy .
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: DSS-46 (Canberra Region)
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the contrary, Keith. I would have thought that NOT completing the survey implies that you're "engaged".
Not completing the survey means you have nothing positive NOR negative †o report. (Keeping the status quo).
Apathy (not completing surveys) gets you the result you deserve...
Not completing the survey means you have nothing positive NOR negative †o report. (Keeping the status quo).
Apathy (not completing surveys) gets you the result you deserve...
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Mods logic is correct:
participation rate up = simply means more people telling the numb-nuts in management that they have got it wrong.
Actually - while the rise in the 'log on' count might be lauded, the actual result is proabably far from pretty - which is why the survey methodology uses batches of ten as a base - why ...it then skews (lessens) the % decline compared to pevious.
I don't care about the numbers who logged on - I'm more interested in the qualitative results......oh I doubt there will be any 'attributable outcomes'
AT
participation rate up = simply means more people telling the numb-nuts in management that they have got it wrong.
Actually - while the rise in the 'log on' count might be lauded, the actual result is proabably far from pretty - which is why the survey methodology uses batches of ten as a base - why ...it then skews (lessens) the % decline compared to pevious.
I don't care about the numbers who logged on - I'm more interested in the qualitative results......oh I doubt there will be any 'attributable outcomes'
AT
What The
Just to repeat this post.
Several people have mentioned the same, this was not posible in past surveys so no wonder there was a higher participation rate.
Lyell Strumbying it would be more like it, was this survey flawed on purpose or just a sign of the time incompetance?
I know of one person who completed the survey 14 times. All on company time of course.
Lyell Strumbying it would be more like it, was this survey flawed on purpose or just a sign of the time incompetance?
Nunc est bibendum
The results from the previous survey were released- at least for flight ops. They weren't pretty. This time they will be much worse.
Last time too there were some comments from various personnel in flight ops management that perhaps flight crew didn't realize that it was about flint ops management rather than executive management. I know a number of crew who made it very clear that they were very much disengaged with both levels.
Last time too there were some comments from various personnel in flight ops management that perhaps flight crew didn't realize that it was about flint ops management rather than executive management. I know a number of crew who made it very clear that they were very much disengaged with both levels.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Southern
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you fill it in - you will be counted amongst the engaged employees.
Company's who are interested in the results conduct "Culture Survey's" and other such named exercises, which are generally accompanied by million dollar investments in an outside and unbiased HR type company conducting said surveys, and generally run over a period much longer than a few months.
An "engaged employee" is one who is fully involved in, and enthusiastic about, his or her work, and thus will act in a way that furthers their organization's interests.
Employee Engagement is the extent to which workforce commitment, both emotional and intellectual, exists relative to accomplishing the work, mission, and vision of the organization. Engagement can be seen as a heightened level of ownership where each employee wants to do whatever they can for the benefit of their internal and external customers, and for the success of the organization as a whole.
Employee Engagement is the extent to which workforce commitment, both emotional and intellectual, exists relative to accomplishing the work, mission, and vision of the organization. Engagement can be seen as a heightened level of ownership where each employee wants to do whatever they can for the benefit of their internal and external customers, and for the success of the organization as a whole.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Perth
Posts: 503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Disengaged
Yep, that would be moi ! And yes the algorithm is correct. I indeed completed the survey (only once 
)
And yes- I hammered home my views on company LEADERSHIP (lack of),STRATEGIC DIRECTION (ditto) COMMUNICATION (ditto) RECOGNITION PROGRAMS (ditto) MERIT SELECTION /CAREER PLANNING (ditto).
In fact EVERYTHING ...........thats why I'm... "one of them" totally and utterly disengaged and thats why.......
I'm getting out of this joint.
The final straw came for me last month......when after an extended delay ex LHR and completing a 19hour 50min TOD some management "NUMPTIE" wrote a letter of complaint because he witnessed..... "some of the crew (whilst waiting for their keys and allowances) were not wearing their jackets in the lobby of the hotel".
1. Why didn't he bother to approach the CSM to give his "feedback"?
2. It was 31 degrees outside.
3. Is the non wearing of a jacket.......that big a deal in the grand scheme of things?????
Upon returning to SYD -all crew had a copy of the "complaint" letter in our files from our Cabin Crew Managers with a note-PLEASE EXPLAIN. (The complaining manager had his name blacked out)
Nothing.... about......"we realise it was a tough sector and we appreciate your efforts"
....just explain and/or dob in the crew who were NOT wearing jackets !
So........The orange surrender flag has gone up......or should I say I'm in a Kamikaze dive (FCKUNI CLOWN !!
)
As a once loyal , engaged employee who loved coming to work, felt proud to say I worked for Qantas , won SAAB and eXcel awards to someone now who is embarrassed to even mention to anyone that I work for Qantas .....over the years my loyalty has been crushed by the ineptitude of "management" and their obsession with greed, lies and the total contempt for our customers. In fact, the overall arrogance of the regime's -post Ward has been nothing short of appalling.
Engagement.........yeah.....pffft !
)And yes- I hammered home my views on company LEADERSHIP (lack of),STRATEGIC DIRECTION (ditto) COMMUNICATION (ditto) RECOGNITION PROGRAMS (ditto) MERIT SELECTION /CAREER PLANNING (ditto).
In fact EVERYTHING ...........thats why I'm... "one of them" totally and utterly disengaged and thats why.......
I'm getting out of this joint.
The final straw came for me last month......when after an extended delay ex LHR and completing a 19hour 50min TOD some management "NUMPTIE" wrote a letter of complaint because he witnessed..... "some of the crew (whilst waiting for their keys and allowances) were not wearing their jackets in the lobby of the hotel".
1. Why didn't he bother to approach the CSM to give his "feedback"?
2. It was 31 degrees outside.
3. Is the non wearing of a jacket.......that big a deal in the grand scheme of things?????
Upon returning to SYD -all crew had a copy of the "complaint" letter in our files from our Cabin Crew Managers with a note-PLEASE EXPLAIN. (The complaining manager had his name blacked out)
Nothing.... about......"we realise it was a tough sector and we appreciate your efforts"
....just explain and/or dob in the crew who were NOT wearing jackets !So........The orange surrender flag has gone up......or should I say I'm in a Kamikaze dive (FCKUNI CLOWN !!
)As a once loyal , engaged employee who loved coming to work, felt proud to say I worked for Qantas , won SAAB and eXcel awards to someone now who is embarrassed to even mention to anyone that I work for Qantas .....over the years my loyalty has been crushed by the ineptitude of "management" and their obsession with greed, lies and the total contempt for our customers. In fact, the overall arrogance of the regime's -post Ward has been nothing short of appalling.
Engagement.........yeah.....pffft !
Of course , it would be too much to expect the knockers and whingers to put their money where their mouth is and leave the place , as it is so bad according to you lot . No , you will stay and take the benefits , hard won by previous generations of real Unionists . A load of sooks and whingers todays lot, put up or shut up comes to mind . Ah well enjoy .
OK, that really makes sense.
How's this for a point of view, we'll be working for Qantas long after the current crop of management are long gone in disgrace like the previous. We don't have short term bonuses to meet knowing we'll be gone by the time today's decisions come home to roost.
Good luck with it all, I know its just a big game to IR and consultants. The current crop of management are all so well remunerated into the millions per year that they don't care about their future within Qantas. They know as long as the corporate circle jerk matey matey club continues they can jump from job to job playing financial games.
Why would they care when they've probably got a few board positions and a ceo position lined up with their mate they gave a subordinate role to many years earlier.
Good luck Qantas, listen to your staff, you might learn something about whats wrong.
Or maybe you'll tell them.
Or engage consultants to post on PPRUNE telling us all how stupid we are.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: 5th Dimension
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Destruction Of The Qantas Culture
These surveys are a gauge of how well management is doing in regard to destroying the embedded Qantas culture of service and excellence.From all accounts they are succeeding.
Management feels that excellence is no longer relevant and that those who hang on to this notion are not only irrelevant but are impeding the forward momentum of the corporation.
Where that forward momentum will lead is unclear.The sale of Qantas is still on the agenda.The government of the day is complicit in this.BA is still interested but is being a little quieter about its aspirations.The general consensus amongst all interested parties is that Australia does not deserve a premium national carrier.
The indifferent juggernaut rolls on
Management feels that excellence is no longer relevant and that those who hang on to this notion are not only irrelevant but are impeding the forward momentum of the corporation.
Where that forward momentum will lead is unclear.The sale of Qantas is still on the agenda.The government of the day is complicit in this.BA is still interested but is being a little quieter about its aspirations.The general consensus amongst all interested parties is that Australia does not deserve a premium national carrier.
The indifferent juggernaut rolls on
"Destruction Of The Qantas Culture"
Why yes, don't you understand this?
The Board and senior management of the airline are operating to what I call " a script". This became obvious and alarm bells began ringing the instant I heard Dixon (or was it Jackson?) using the phrase legacy airline to describe Qantas International.
It is quite simple; Jetstar is the new Qantas. The Board want to kill the old Qantas. When "Stubby Jumbo" and others here state that they are leaving after 20+ years with Qantas, this is music to the Boards ears - they want you to leave.
I will try and explain the mindset because I have seen it before. I apologise if I get the description slightly wrong.
....A mainline pilot:
What you believe you are:
A highly skilled professional who started in GA, worked hard and through long experience and devotion to professionalism, now sit at the pinnacle of aviation achievement as a Qantas B747 Captain.
What the Board believes you are:
A balding, ancient and overpaid Prima Donna who refuses even simple requests for operational economies on account of mythical "safety' concerns, justifying them on the basis of their so called "experience" - which is irrelevant in today's dynamic business environment.
A Flight Attendant:
What you believe you are:
A consummate professional who has learned through long practice and training how to manage passengers so as to afford them a pleasant travel experience consistent with operational safety.
What the Board believes you are:
An ugly old fat hag who is totally resistant to change, paid far too much, and is far too vocal in demanding a totally unreasonable and uneconomic level of creature comforts on behalf of "her" customers.
An Engineer:
What you believe you are:
A professional of many years experience who with hard acquired skills and experience has dedicated themselves to making every Qantas aircraft as safe as it is humanly possible to be made on every flight.
What the Board believes you are:
A greasy jumped up car mechanic that is paid far too much money by virtue of an insidious system of blackmail and extortion managed by their union....and of course is totally resistant to any change in their archaic work environment.
Anyway, that is how I've seen this play out in another industry. The common factor is that experience is seen as a handicap because it is perceived as making people resistant to change. Of course management doesn't go the extra step of determining exactly why the change is being resisted. They only did one unit of organisational behaviour in their MBA and they were taught that resistance to change is natural - and therefore make the false assumption that there are no concrete reasons why the changes they propose are dangerous and should be resisted.
They therefore ignore advice and press ahead....until there is a smoking hole in the ground.
I watched an IT company decide in 1992 that some Forty or so COBOL programmers should be made redundant because COBOL was a "Legacy programming environment" and that the programmers were old, ugly and impossible to retrain. All of those programmers made lots of money thereafter as consultants dealing with Y2K. The Board of the IT company had forgotten that the eternal verities of computing don't change, and neither do the laws of aviation. Gravity always wins, no matter how "dynamic" you think your "Business environment" is, and no management technique is going to replace training and experience when the proverbial hits the fan, at night, in bad weather, a long way from land.
Why yes, don't you understand this?
The Board and senior management of the airline are operating to what I call " a script". This became obvious and alarm bells began ringing the instant I heard Dixon (or was it Jackson?) using the phrase legacy airline to describe Qantas International.
It is quite simple; Jetstar is the new Qantas. The Board want to kill the old Qantas. When "Stubby Jumbo" and others here state that they are leaving after 20+ years with Qantas, this is music to the Boards ears - they want you to leave.
I will try and explain the mindset because I have seen it before. I apologise if I get the description slightly wrong.
....A mainline pilot:
What you believe you are:
A highly skilled professional who started in GA, worked hard and through long experience and devotion to professionalism, now sit at the pinnacle of aviation achievement as a Qantas B747 Captain.
What the Board believes you are:
A balding, ancient and overpaid Prima Donna who refuses even simple requests for operational economies on account of mythical "safety' concerns, justifying them on the basis of their so called "experience" - which is irrelevant in today's dynamic business environment.
A Flight Attendant:
What you believe you are:
A consummate professional who has learned through long practice and training how to manage passengers so as to afford them a pleasant travel experience consistent with operational safety.
What the Board believes you are:
An ugly old fat hag who is totally resistant to change, paid far too much, and is far too vocal in demanding a totally unreasonable and uneconomic level of creature comforts on behalf of "her" customers.
An Engineer:
What you believe you are:
A professional of many years experience who with hard acquired skills and experience has dedicated themselves to making every Qantas aircraft as safe as it is humanly possible to be made on every flight.
What the Board believes you are:
A greasy jumped up car mechanic that is paid far too much money by virtue of an insidious system of blackmail and extortion managed by their union....and of course is totally resistant to any change in their archaic work environment.
Anyway, that is how I've seen this play out in another industry. The common factor is that experience is seen as a handicap because it is perceived as making people resistant to change. Of course management doesn't go the extra step of determining exactly why the change is being resisted. They only did one unit of organisational behaviour in their MBA and they were taught that resistance to change is natural - and therefore make the false assumption that there are no concrete reasons why the changes they propose are dangerous and should be resisted.
They therefore ignore advice and press ahead....until there is a smoking hole in the ground.
I watched an IT company decide in 1992 that some Forty or so COBOL programmers should be made redundant because COBOL was a "Legacy programming environment" and that the programmers were old, ugly and impossible to retrain. All of those programmers made lots of money thereafter as consultants dealing with Y2K. The Board of the IT company had forgotten that the eternal verities of computing don't change, and neither do the laws of aviation. Gravity always wins, no matter how "dynamic" you think your "Business environment" is, and no management technique is going to replace training and experience when the proverbial hits the fan, at night, in bad weather, a long way from land.